Duncan v Gumleys
Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; (1987) SLT 729-737(9)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: Second Division 12 March 1987 A reclaiming motion against the Lord Ordinary`s award of damages against chartered surveyors for carrying out a negligent mortgage valuation on a house. The surveyors contended that the case set out by the purchaser of the house was not established; the Lord Ordinary had found in the purchaser`s favour upon a ground not set out or founded upon in his pleadings and that that ground had not been proved by sufficient evidence, and that the purchaser had failed to prove his loss, there being no evidence before the court to enable the Lord Ordinary to make a calculation of the value of the house in its defective state at the relevant time. Second Division held that the case on which the purchaser succeeded was a variation, modification or development of what was averred on record and accordingly fell within the record`s terms; there was sufficient corroboration of that case and that the purchaser had produced no such evidence to entitle the Lord Ordinary to m| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38467 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10833-1001 |
Second Division 12 March 1987 A reclaiming motion against the Lord Ordinary`s award of damages against chartered surveyors for carrying out a negligent mortgage valuation on a house. The surveyors contended that the case set out by the purchaser of the house was not established; the Lord Ordinary had found in the purchaser`s favour upon a ground not set out or founded upon in his pleadings and that that ground had not been proved by sufficient evidence, and that the purchaser had failed to prove his loss, there being no evidence before the court to enable the Lord Ordinary to make a calculation of the value of the house in its defective state at the relevant time. Second Division held that the case on which the purchaser succeeded was a variation, modification or development of what was averred on record and accordingly fell within the record`s terms; there was sufficient corroboration of that case and that the purchaser had produced no such evidence to entitle the Lord Ordinary to m